Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Quality indicators for community care for older people: A systematic review
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Aging Research Center (ARC), (together with KI). Universita`Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Italy.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 82018 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 13, no 1, article id e0190298Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Health care systems that succeed in preventing long term care and hospital admissions of frail older people may substantially save on their public spending. The key might be found in high-quality care in the community. Quality Indicators (QIs) of a sufficient methodological level are a prerequisite to monitor, compare, and improve care quality. This systematic review identified existing QIs for community care for older people and assessed their methodological quality.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and selected by two reviewers independently. Eligible publications described the development or application of QIs to assess the quality of community care for older people. Information about the QIs, the study sample, and specific setting was extracted. The methodological quality of the QI sets was assessed with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A score of 50% or higher on a domain was considered to indicate high methodological quality.

Results

Searches resulted in 25 included articles, describing 17 QI sets with 567 QIs. Most indicators referred to care processes (80%) and measured clinical issues (63%), mainly about follow-up, monitoring, examinations and treatment. About two-third of the QIs focussed on specific disease groups. The methodological quality of the indicator sets varied considerably. The highest overall level was achieved on the domain 'Additional evidence, formulation and usage' (51%), followed by 'Scientific evidence' (39%) and 'Stakeholder involvement' (28%).

Conclusion

A substantial number of QIs is available to assess the quality of community care for older people. However, generic QIs, measuring care outcomes and non-clinical aspects are relatively scarce and most QI sets do not meet standards of high methodological quality. This study can support policy makers and clinicians to navigate through a large number of QIs and select QIs for their purposes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 13, no 1, article id e0190298
National Category
Other Natural Sciences Nursing Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-152544DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190298ISI: 000419655900010PubMedID: 29315325OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-152544DiVA, id: diva2:1183952
Available from: 2018-02-20 Created: 2018-02-20 Last updated: 2018-02-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Aging Research Center (ARC), (together with KI)
In the same journal
PLoS ONE
Other Natural SciencesNursingHealth Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf